Awards

Archives

Categories

States

Tag: North Dakota

Efforts to ban state courts from using or referencing foreign/international law in general, and sharia law in particular, continue apace with two legislatures approving versions while a bill in North Dakota was rejected.

Arkansas enacted a ban (HB 1041). An earlier version noted here would have re-declared that marriage in Arkansas was limited to a man and a woman, despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision saying the opposite. The amended/enacted HB 1041 provides

A court ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision one (1) or more of the following fundamental rights, liberties, and privileges granted under the Arkansas Constitution or the United States Constitution:
(1) The right to due process;
(2) The right to equal protection;
(3) Freedom of religion;
(4) Freedom of speech;
(5) Freedom of the press;
(6) The right to keep and bear arms;
(7) The right to privacy; or
(8) The right to marry, as “marriage” is defined by the Arkansas Constitution, to the extent that the definition of marriage does not conflict with federal law or a holding by the United States Supreme Court.

Meanwhile the Montana legislature approved a version (SB 97) that is currently pending on the governor’s desk that reads in operative part

A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of Montana and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Montana constitution or the United States constitution, including but not limited to due process, equal protection, freedom of religion, speech, or press, the right to keep and bear arms, and any right of privacy or marriage.

Finally, North Dakota’s House approved HB 1425 in February, but in late March the Senate rejected the proposal. At issue was the situation similar to Arkansas, namely, that the bill would have attempted to re-establish a ban on same-sex marriage. Senators objected to the marriage provision and amended it out, but also worried this was an “insult to our judges” and assumes North Dakota judges would violate the U.S. and North Dakota Constitutions without this bill.

The 2017 legislative session appears poised to pick up where the 2015/2016 sessions left off with respects to attempts to ban state courts from using or making reference to foreign/international law in general and sharia law in particular. Among the legislation:

A court ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision one (1) or more of the following fundamental rights, liberties, and privileges granted under the Arkansas Constitution or the United States Constitution

The other bill to advance so far was Montana’s SB 97 which cleared the Senate 27-21 on February 3. It too mentions marriage, but does not explicitly limit it to one man and one woman.

A court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of Montana and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision on a law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the Montana constitution or the United States constitution, including but not limited to due process, equal protection, freedom of religion, speech, or press, the right to keep and bear arms, and any right of privacy or marriage.

A plan put forth in the North Dakota House to have the state’s military take over the Judicial Conduct Commission which has the power to discipline the judges in the state has failed.

HB 1313 as introduced (and discussed here) would have removed the state’s 7 member Judicial Conduct Commission, made up of judges, lawyers, and nonlawyers chosen by judges, the bar, and the governor respectively.

During committee hearings this proposal was rejected and instead amended to focus on the Commission’s hearing panel. Currently, that panel is made up of 4 commissioners of which at least 2 must be nonlawyers. The amendment would have expanded the hearing panel to 5 with at least 3 nonlawyers. Even with the amendment the House Judiciary committee recommended rejecting the bill as amended on a 9-5 vote. The full House rejected the amended bill on a 5-84 vote last week.

A bill filed yesterday by a newly elected member of North Dakota’s House would provide for the state’s military to take over the North Dakota Judicial Conduct Commission.

Currently the 7-member commission is made up of 2 District Court judges chosen by their fellow judges, 1 lawyer picked by the state bar’s board of governors, and 4 citizens who aren’t judges, retired judges, or lawyers picked by the governor.

in any case in which the constitutionality of legislation enacted by the Legislature is at issue, the vote of the Supreme Court must be unanimous or there must not be more than one dissenting vote for the legislation to be declared unconstitutional. If the vote of the Supreme Court is not unanimous and there is more than one dissenting vote , the legislation shall not be held to be unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the bill does not apply to the state’s other court of last resort (Court of Criminal Appeals).

Only Nebraska (5/7) and North Dakota (4/7) require specific vote totals to find a law unconstitutional by the state’s court of last resort. A few states have quorum-minimums that require a majority of all justices of the court (as opposed to just a majority of the panel of justices hearing the case) are needed to strike down a law.

Arizona

The state’s constitution provides the Supreme Court may sit together (“in banc”) or in panels of 3 judges, however “the court shall not declare any law unconstitutional except when sitting in banc.” (Art. VI, Sec. 2)

Nebraska

The state’s constitution provides “No legislative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five [out of seven] judges.” (Art. V, Sec. 2)

This came up most recently in 2015 regarding a law that allowed “major oil pipeline” carriers to bypass the regulatory procedures of the Public Service Commission. (Thompson v. Heineman, 289 Neb. 798; 857 N.W.2d 731). Four judges ruled 1) appellees had standing and 2) the statute in question was unconstitutional. Three dissenting judges found that the five-judge requirement applied to both the questions of standing/jurisdiction and the merits and because there were not 5 votes on standing/jurisdiction the case should have been dismissed.

North Dakota

The state’s constitution provides “the supreme court shall not declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional unless at least four of the [five] members of the court so decide.” (Art. VI, Sec. 4)

Two justices (one regular justice and a trial judge filling in due to a vacancy on the court) found the statute in question violated the ND constitution. Two justices found the statute constitutional under the ND constitution. One justice found the question did not need to be decided under the ND constitution. (2-2-1)

Three justices (two regular justices plus the fill-in trial judge) found the statute also violated the Federal constitution. One justice found the statute constitutional under the Federal constitution. One justice found the question was not properly before the court. (3-1-1)

The court ultimately found “The effect of the separate opinions in this case is that [the statute] is not declared unconstitutional by a sufficient majority…”

Utah

The state’s constitution provides “The Supreme Court by rule may sit and render final judgment either en banc or in divisions. The court shall not declare any law unconstitutional under this constitution or the Constitution of the United States, except on the concurrence of a majority of all [five] justices of the Supreme Court. (Art. VIII, Sec. 2)

Virginia

The state’s constitution is similar to Utah’s: “The Court may sit and render final judgment en banc or in divisions as may be prescribed by law…[N]o law shall be declared unconstitutional under either this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States except on the concurrence of at least a majority of all justices of the Supreme Court.” (Art. VI, Sec. 2)

Arkansas: The state had partisan elections until a 2000 constitutional amendment (Amendment 80) rewrote the state’s entire judiciary article. Section 18 of the new judiciary article requires nonpartisan elections.

Supreme Court Justices and Court of Appeals Judges shall be elected on a nonpartisan basis by a majority of qualified electors voting for such office.

HJR 1015 of 2015 would have ended the mandated use of nonpartisan elections and allowed the General Assembly to use either partisan or nonpartisan elections. It died without a hearing.

Georgia: The state in 1983 adopted an entirely new constitution that requires nonpartisan election of appellate judges (Art. VI, Sec. VII, Para. I)

All Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Court of Appeals shall be elected on a nonpartisan basis for a term of six years.

HR 855 of 2005 would have ended the mandated use of nonpartisan elections and allowed the General Assembly to use either partisan or nonpartisan elections. It died without a hearing.

Idaho: The state has made use of nonpartisan elections for the Supreme Court since at least 1970 (I.C. 34-905).

There shall be a single nonpartisan ballot for the election of justices of the supreme court and district judges.

There has been no attempt to alter this provision in the last two decades.

Kentucky: The state in 1975 adopted an entirely new constitution that requires nonpartisan election of appellate judges (Sec. 117)

Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Court of Appeals, Circuit and District Court shall be elected from their respective districts or circuits on a nonpartisan basis as provided by law.

There has been no attempt to alter this provision in the last two decades.

Minnesota: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s appellate courts run on a nonpartisan basis (Minn. Stat. 204B.06(6))

Each justice of the Supreme Court and each Court of Appeals and district court judge is deemed to hold a separate nonpartisan office.

There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan, although several bills were introduced to change the nonpartisan races to gubernatorial appointment from a judicial nominating commission list and yes/no retention elections.

Mississippi: The state made use of partisan elections until the adoption of the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act in 1994. MS Code 23-15-976 specifies that

A judicial office is a nonpartisan office and a candidate for election thereto is prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for such an office based on party affiliation.

Nearly 3 dozen attempts have been made to repeal the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act in its entirety or at least with respect to the appellate courts and revert the law back to what it was prior to 1994 bringing a return to partisan elections. None have advanced out of committee.

Montana: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court run on a nonpartisan basis (MT Code 13-14-111)

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, candidates for nonpartisan offices, including judicial offices, must be nominated and elected according to the provisions of this title.

SB 393 of 2005, D. 1760 of 2009, and HB 521 of 2011 would have made the races for Supreme Court partisan. The 2005 bill was killed in committee and the 2009 version only reached the drafting stage. The 2011 version was approved on a 12-6 vote of the House State Administration Committee but was killed by the full House on a 45-54 procedural vote not to advance the bill beyond the 2nd Reading calendar.

Nevada: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court or its new Court of Appeals run on a nonpartisan basis (N.R.S. 293.195)

Judicial offices…are hereby designated nonpartisan offices.

There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.

North Dakota: State law prohibits any reference to party on ballots for the state’s Supreme Court (N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-11-08)

No reference may be made to a party ballot or to the party affiliation of a candidate in a petition and affidavit filed by or on behalf of a candidate for nomination in the primary election to an elective county office, the office of judge of the supreme court, judge of the district court, or superintendent of public instruction.

There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.

Oregon: State law defines races for the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals as nonpartisan (O.R.S. 254.005(8))

“Nonpartisan office” means the office of judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals….

There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.

Washington: State law mandates that those seeking a seat on the state’s Supreme Court run on a nonpartisan basis (RCW 29A.52.231)

The offices of superintendent of public instruction, justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of the superior court, and judge of the district court shall be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected as such.

Two bills to convert races for both appellate courts (HB 2661 of 2011) or just the Supreme Court (HB 1051 of 2015) were never heard in committee. A third proposal (HB 2150 of 2007) would have replaced nonpartisan elections with gubernatorial appointment from a judicial nominating commission list and yes/no retention elections.

Wisconsin: State law defines judicial races as occurring during the nonpartisan Spring Elections (Wis. Stat. 5.02(21))

“Spring election” means the election held on the first Tuesday in April to elect judicial, educational and municipal officers, nonpartisan county officers and sewerage commissioners and to express preferences for the person to be the presidential candidate for each party in a year in which electors for president and vice president are to be elected.

There has been no attempt to change this from nonpartisan to partisan.

I noted back in March the litany of bills that would allow for expanded carrying of firearms into courthouses, and in some cases directly into courtrooms. Since then there’s been a great deal of activity.

In late July North Carolina’s governor signed into law a bill (HB 562) that would allow for prosecutors to carry guns not just into courthouses but directly into courtrooms. Moreover, the no-guns-courthouses policy (specifically that “portion of the building used for court purposes while the building is being used for court purposes.”) already in place no longer applies to administrative law judges or employees of the Department of Public Safety.

At the same time North Carolina was debating expanding guns-in-courthouses, Oregon was moving to restrict. SB 385, as introduced, originally added justice courts and municipal courts to the definition of “court facility” in which firearms and other weapons are prohibited except in specified circumstances. As enacted SB 385 still expands the restriction, allowing municipal court and justice of the peace court judges to ban weapons but only to those portions of the “local court facility” used by the court during the hours in which the court operates. Moreover, in buildings where there are multiple types of court (circuit, municipal, justice of the peace, etc.) the presiding judge of Circuit Court can enforce a ban that cannot be contradicted by an order of the lower court’s judges.

A review of 2015 legislation regarding guns in courts is below the fold.

During this legislative session, seven states passed measures that expand protections against the filing of false liens—a legal claim to property for unpaid debt—for public officials, and one other state is still considering such a measure. Over the past 20 years, an increasing number of individuals have taken to filing false liens against public officials, a form of harassment that the FBI has dubbed “paper terrorism.” The states have responded by allowing clerks and filing offices to reject such claims, as recommended by the National Association of Secretaries of State, and by increasing civil and criminal penalties.

In addition to the seven states that passed measures this year, there are a number of other states with existing protections. In 2012, this blog covered the efforts of six states (here and here) to pass such measures, three of which were ultimately successful. Similarly, there were eight states in 2013, and five states in 2014, that successfully passed such legislation. The following is a review of efforts in the states to protect judges and other public officials from false liens during the 2015 legislative session.

PassedIndiana HB 1371 amends existing law prohibiting the filing of false liens to include those who do not currently hold office but have in the preceding four years and provides that liens will be voided if a suit has not commenced within 30 days.

Maryland SB 77 provides that if the filing office believes a claim to be false, they must notify the subject of the filing, state their reasons for believing it is false, and terminate it in 45 days unless the claimant files an affidavit under the penalties of perjury that provides for the claim’s validity. If the filing office still believes the claim to be false after receiving the affidavit, the office may terminate the claim in 45 days unless the claimant petitions for a judicial determination of its validity. (Note: The Governor vetoed HB 312 as duplicative).

Nevada SB 197 amends existing law to prohibit and classify as a category B felony the filing of a false lien or other encumbrance “against the real or personal property of a public officer, candidate for public office, public employee, or participant in an official proceeding, or a member of [their] immediate family” based on the performance of or failure to perform the duties relating to their office or employment. The subject of the fraudulent claim is permitted to bring civil suit against the claimant under this statute.

New Jersey AB 2481 authorizes the filing office to reject a claim it reasonably believes to be materially false or fraudulent because it is (1) filed against a current or former officer or employee of any federal, state, county, local, or other government unit; (2) relates to their performance or failure to perform the duties relating to their office or employment; and (3) “for which the filer does not hold a properly executed security agreement or judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction.” The statute allows the filing office to reject claims filed by incarcerated individuals. The official or employee against whom the claim is filed is also authorized to bring civil suit, and the court is authorized to grant awards up to $2000 or damages incurred and enjoin the defendant from filing any future liens, encumbrances, or court actions without the approval of the court. (Note: The existing statute already included the provision that the filing of a false lien against a public official or employee is a second degree crime).

North Carolina SB 83 amends existing law concerning the filing of false liens or encumbrances against the real or personal property of a public officer, public employee, or their immediate family. The measure authorizes the register of deeds or clerk of court to refuse to file a claim that they reasonably suspect to be fraudulent. The measure also provides an appeals process for denied filings.

North Dakota HB 1307 amends existing law to classify the threatening of a public servant, including the filing of false liens, as a class A misdemeanor for a first offense, and a class C felony for second and subsequent offenses.

PendingCalifornia AB 1267 expands existing protections against false liens to apply to lawsuits and other encumbrances against public officials with the intent to harass. It also provides that the subject of the fraudulent claim can request an order directing the claimant to appear in court to defend the claim. AB 1267 was passed by both the House and Senate, but is still awaiting the Governor’s approval.

Pennsylvania SB 212 classifies the filing of a false lien, in addition to any other unlawful action that attempts to influence, intimidate, or hinder a public official or law enforcement officer from performing their duties, as a misdemeanor of the second degree. This bill is still pending in committee.